"Wikipedia’s Labor Squeeze and Its Consequences"

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

"Wikipedia’s Labor Squeeze and Its Consequences"

Ryan Delaney
Here's another outside view of the goings-on in Wikipedia, especially with
respect to the current trend toward backing away from the former pure
interpretation of the "anyone can edit" part of your slogan.

http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1606233&seqNum=4
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "Wikipedia’s Labor Squeeze and Its Consequences"

Carcharoth
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 11:24 PM, Ryan Delaney <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Here's another outside view of the goings-on in Wikipedia, especially with
> respect to the current trend toward backing away from the former pure
> interpretation of the "anyone can edit" part of your slogan.
>
> http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1606233&seqNum=4

Thanks. For those who like to start at the beginning, here is a link
to the start of that article:

http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1606233

Carcharoth

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "Wikipedia’s Labor Squeeze and Its Consequences"

Carcharoth
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 4:21 AM, Carcharoth <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 11:24 PM, Ryan Delaney <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Here's another outside view of the goings-on in Wikipedia, especially with
>> respect to the current trend toward backing away from the former pure
>> interpretation of the "anyone can edit" part of your slogan.
>
> http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1606233

Not sure he gets everything in that article right, but I do agree that
the long-term fate of Wikipedia may well be decided on the basis of
whether the balance can be struck right between reducing the
"maintenance" workload involved in keeping vandalism out and reviewing
contributions. Which is why it is important to continually question
whether expansion has to slow or stop at some point, and how to handle
the consolidation phase that will follow. Many people want to edit
Wikipedia to add things. How many people will want to edit when told
their help is needed more to improve what is already here?

Carcharoth

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "Wikipedia’s Labor Squeeze and Its Consequences"

Gregory Maxwell
In reply to this post by Ryan Delaney
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Ryan Delaney <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Here's another outside view of the goings-on in Wikipedia, especially with
> respect to the current trend toward backing away from the former pure
> interpretation of the "anyone can edit" part of your slogan.
>
> http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1606233&seqNum=4

"The 2007 study also indicated that human Wikipedia editors, as
opposed to anti-vandal robots, made 100 percent of the corrections,"

Why do people love to misconstrue research in such bogus ways?

His cited supporting evidence for this claim studied _14_ examples of
vandalism in 2006 (and about as much in total from all prior years).
A zero-bot result in a sample that small would still be fairly likely
even if bots were doing a pretty considerable amount of the work.
(E.g. 5% for 1/5 reverts)... and 2006 was really back when the
automated anti-vandalism tools were really getting started, predates
abusefilter, etc.

I'm sure there are many interesting things to say on this subject but
I'm too distracted by all the strawman arguments.

It's fine as an opinion piece, too bad that many people feel the need
to stuff their editorials with misconstrued data in order to look like
research rather than an op-ed.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "Wikipedia’s Labor Squeeze and Its Consequences"

Charles Matthews
Gregory Maxwell wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Ryan Delaney <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>> Here's another outside view of the goings-on in Wikipedia, especially with
>> respect to the current trend toward backing away from the former pure
>> interpretation of the "anyone can edit" part of your slogan.
>>
>> http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1606233&seqNum=4
>>    
>
> "The 2007 study also indicated that human Wikipedia editors, as
> opposed to anti-vandal robots, made 100 percent of the corrections,"
>
> Why do people love to misconstrue research in such bogus ways?
>
> His cited supporting evidence for this claim studied _14_ examples of
> vandalism in 2006 (and about as much in total from all prior years).
> A zero-bot result in a sample that small would still be fairly likely
> even if bots were doing a pretty considerable amount of the work.
> (E.g. 5% for 1/5 reverts)... and 2006 was really back when the
> automated anti-vandalism tools were really getting started, predates
> abusefilter, etc.
>
> I'm sure there are many interesting things to say on this subject but
> I'm too distracted by all the strawman arguments.
>
> It's fine as an opinion piece, too bad that many people feel the need
> to stuff their editorials with misconstrued data in order to look like
> research rather than an op-ed.
>
>  
"This article originated from three blog posts on Eric's Technology &
Marketing Law Blog: Wikipedia Will Fail Within 5 Years (Dec. 5, 2005);
Wikipedia Will Fail in 4 Years (Dec. 5, 2006); Wikipedia Revisited: the
Wikipedia Community’s Xenophobia (Jan. 22, 2008). "

This is punditry with footnotes, but still punditry. I don't actually
believe we shall have clearly failed within 6 months: then I have a
stake in not believing that, as Goldman apparently has a stake in a
prediction of that type. There is, as there always has been, a dynamic
on enWP: currrently I have some views as to what is going on, but these
don't match at all to many accepted "pundit" views (which therefore
annoy me).

Charles


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l